An offprint from

Island archaeology and the orIgInsof seafarIng

In the eastern MedIterranean

Proceedings of the Wenner Gren Workshop held at Reggio Calabriaon October 19-21, 2012

In memory of John D. Evans

Eurasian Prehistory Guest Editors:

Albert J. Ammerman and Thomas Davis

PART ONE(Eurasian Prehistory 10/2013)

Introduction

Introduction1. Albert J. Ammerman

Chronological framework2. Thomas W. Davis

Placing island archaeology and early voyaging in context

The origins of mammals on the Mediterranean islands as an indicator of early voyaging 3. Jean-Denis Vigne

Cosmic impact, the Younger Dryas, Abu Hureyra, and the inception of agriculture in Western Asia4. Andrew M. T. Moore and Douglas J. Kennett

The homelands of the Cyprus colonizers: selected comments5. Ofer Bar-Yosef

Marine resources in the Early Neolithic of the Levant: their relevance to early seafaring6. Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer

Early seafaring and the archaeology of submerged landscapes7. Geoff N. Bailey

Case studies

A. Cyprus

Tracing the steps in the fieldwork at the sites of Aspros and Nissi Beach on Cyprus8. Albert J. Ammerman

Akrotiri-9. Aetokremnos (Cyprus) 20 years later: an assessment of its significance Alan H. Simmons

The transportation of mammals to Cyprus sheds light on early voyaging and boats in the Mediterranean Sea10. Jean-Denis Vigne, Antoine Zazzo, Isabella Carrère, François Briois and Jean Guilaine

On the chipped stone assemblages at Klimonas and Shillourokambos and their links with the mainland11. François Briois and Jean Guilaine

PART TWO(Eurasian Prehistory 11/2014)

Temporal placement and context of Cyro-PPNA activity on Cyprus12. Sturt W. Manning

B. The Aegean

The Aegean Mesolithic: material culture, chronology, and networks of contact13. MałgorzataKaczanowskaandJanuszK.Kozłowski

The Aegean Mesolithic: environment, economy, and voyaging14. Adamantios Sampson

The late forager camp of Ouriakos on the island of Lemnos: 15. Human groups on the move at the turn of the Holocene in the Northern Aegean Nikos Efstratiou

Initial occupation of the Gelibolu Peninsula and the Gökçeada (Imbroz) island 16. in the pre-Neolithic and Early Neolithic Onur Özbek and Burçin Erdogu

Lower Palaeolithic artifacts from Plakias, Crete: Implications for homi17. nin dispersals Curtis Runnels, Chad DiGregorio, Karl W. Wegmann, Sean F. Gallen, Thomas F. Strasser, Eleni Panagopoulou

C. Central and Western Mediterranean

The spread of farming to the Adriatic: New insights from Dalmatia18. Andrew M. T. Moore

The question of voyaging foragers in the Central Mediterranean19. Marcello A. Mannino

Early prehistoric voyaging in the Western Mediterranean: Implications for 20. the Neolithic transition in Iberia and the Maghreb João Zilhão

Looking forward

Setting our sights on the distant horizon21. Albert J. Ammerman

Eurasian Prehistory, 10 (1–2): 139–156

AKROTIRI-AETOKREMNOS (CYPRUS) 20 YEARS LATER: AN ASSESSMENT OF ITS SIGNIFICANCE

Alan H. Simmons

Department of Anthropology, POB 455003, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA, 89154; simmonsa@unlv.nevada.edu

AbstractOver the years, there have been many claims for pre-Neolithic sites on many of the Mediterranean islands. These generally have not been supported by robust data sets. This changed with the interdisciplinary investigation of Akrotiri Aetokremnos, a small collapsed rockshelter on the southern coast of Cyprus. The site is well dated to the Late Epipaleolithic (ca. 12,000 cal. BP) by a strong suite of radiocarbon determinations, it has excellent context with well-defined stratigraphy, and it has an artifact assemblage that, at the time of excavation, was unique in Cyprus. All of these criteria are necessary for demonstrating a defensible human presence.

One of the most controversial aspects of Aetokremnos was our claim for a human association with the endemic Cypriot pygmy hippopotamus. This had not previously been demonstrated, and considerable debate ensued related to our contention that humans were at least partially implicated in the extinction of these unique animals. In this contribution, the significance of Aetokremnos is put into a broader context and some of the issues related to the controversy surrounding the site are addressed. These relate specially to stratigraphy, chronology, artifacts, cutmarks, and taphonomy. I conclude by affirming the integrity of Aetokremnos and our interpretation of the site.

Key words: Late Epipaleolithic, Cyprus, archaeological controversies

INTRODUCTION

I first saw Akrotiri Aetokremnos in 1986, and started excavations there in 1988. At the time, I had no idea that the site would end up being so controversial, even some 25 years later. In this contribution I provide a summary of the site viewed with the hindsight of over two decades. This is also an opportunity to incorporate more recent studies from Aetokremnos. The site is well published (Simmons, 1988, 1991, 1999, 2004), thus I do not need to provide excessive data or go into great detail on specifics. Rather, I want to examine why the site is still so controversial, and address specific criticisms that have been directed to our interpretation of Aetokremnos.

Research background

In the not too distant past, most archaeologists were unconvinced that humans had made their way to many of the Mediterranean islands prior to the Neolithic. A handful of pre-Neolithic claims from several islands were largely unsubstantiated, especially on the more oceanic islands that were never linked to the mainlands (Broodbank, 2006; Cherry, 1990, 1992, 2004; Simmons, 1999:18-21). Even the Neolithic on many islands was rela-tively late, with Cyprus having the earliest solid evidence in the form of the aceramic Khirokitia Culture, starting about 7,000 cal. B.C. (Knapp, 2010:205-111, 2013:74-158; Knapp et al., 1994; Le Brun et al., 1987; Steel, 2004:45-63). While the earliest Neolithic on any of the islands, this still was relatively late by mainland standards,

A. H. Simmons140

although this is no longer the case, with very early Neolithic sites now firmly confirmed on Cyprus (e.g., Simmons, 2007:229-263).

This standard reading of Mediterranean island prehistory was dramatically challenged by Akrotiri Aetokremnos, a small collapsed rockshelter located on the southern coast of Cyprus, which dates to ca. 12,000 cal. BP, or Late Epipaleolithic (Figs 1, 2). Aetokremnos was, and remains, extremely controversial, not so much because of its chronology, but because our claim of its association of cultural materials with extinct endemic Pleistocene pygmy hippopotami (Phanourios minutus) and dwarf elephants. Despite over 30 paleontological sites on the island that contain these fauna (Reese, 1989; Held, 1992), they have never before been associated with humans, in Cyprus or on other Mediterranean islands where they occur. We argued that humans had a role in the extinction of these unique animals, thereby contributing to the controversial global debate on the role of humans in Pleistocene extinctions (cf. Diamond, 1989; Martin and Klein, 1984).

Since the excavations at Aetokremnos several additional sites, both in Cyprus and elsewhere, have been presented as pre-Neolithic (Simmons, 2012). Many of these are addressed in this issue. These include claims of extreme antiquity from Crete (in excess of 130,000 years; Strasser et al., 2010) as well as hints of Neanderthal uses of some islands (e.g., Ferentinos et al., 2012). In Cyprus, a few recently investigated sites appear similar to Aetokremnos, as addressed by Ammerman in this issue. However, earlier claims remain unsubstantiated (e.g., Stockton, 1968; Vita-Finzi, 1973). This includes perhaps the strongest, made by someone who was qualified to deal with early sites. James Adovasio et al. (1975) believed that they had found Middle Paleolithic sites in western Cyprus, but these were based on typological comparisons of a few artifacts, and were not in a defensible context. Thus, at least for the time being, it appears that there were no Neanderthals exploring Cyprus.

AETOKREMNOS IN AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT

What environmental data do we have for Cyprus at the time that Aetokremnos was occupied? Unfortunately, paleoenvironmental data for Cyprus at ca. 12,000 BP are rare and we must rely on substantial proxy data from the mainland. At roughly the time of occupation, the Younger Dryas (ca. 12,700-11,500 cal. BP) was in force, and this cold and dry episode undoubtedly had an effect on human populations throughout the Near East (Rosen, 2007:45, 174). Of direct significance to Aetokremnos are two interrelated aspects of the Younger Dryas. The first is that the severe conditions of this event may well have been a stimulus for Late Epipaleolithic peoples on the mainland to initially explore Cyprus. The second is that these adverse conditions likely played a role in the extinction of Cyprus’ endemic fauna. Indeed, we have argued that these conditions, coupled with the presence of a new and efficient predator on the island, humans, conspired to eradicate these fauna.

Prevailing paleoenvironmental conditions for Aetokremnos have been addressed in Simmons (1999:11-14), and can be briefly summarized here. Aetokremnos presently is about 60 meters above the Mediterranean Sea, and a critical issue in assessing its occupation is that of shoreline reconstruction. Fortunately, there is a considerable amount of literature that addresses this for the Mediterranean (van Andel, 1989; Gomez and Pease, 1992; Shackleton et al., 1984). Most researchers believe that the main post-glacial rise in sea-level occurred between ca. 15,000 or 14,000 and 9,000 year ago. But, successfully reconstructing Holocene coastal paleogeography requires an understanding of the relative roles of eustatic and tectonic controls on sea-level (Gomez and Pease, 1992:2). Incorporating such data for much of the Mediterranean, the coastline is assumed to have attained a semblance of its present configuration in the early Holocene (ca. 9,000 BP). For the eastern Mediterranean, however, including Cyprus, it has been more difficult to isolate the effect that localized tectonic activity had on the coastline's configuration during the Holocene (Gomez and Pease, 1992:2).

Akrotiri-Aetokremnos (Cyprus) 20 years later: an assessment of its significance 141

Fig. 1. Map of Cyprus, showing the location of Aetokremnos and other possible Late Epipaleolithic sites. “?” indicates no Late Epipaleolithic radiocarbon ages available yet

Fig. 2. Photo of the location on Aetokremnos

A. H. Simmons142

Poole and Robertson (1991) have delimited the coastal paleogeography of Cyprus for ca. 18,000 BP, but this is too early to be of direct significance for the occupation of Aetokremnos. Likewise, Gomez and Pease (1992) provide paleogeographic maps for the Cypriot coastline for ca. 9,000 and 5,000 BP, after the site’s occupation. According to Gomez and Pease (1992), mean sea-level in the eastern Mediterranean was about 120 m lower at ca. 18,000 BP than its present. By ca. 9,000 BP, mean sea-level had risen to about -35 m, and by 5,000 BP it was within ca. –1 m of its present elevation (Flemming and Webb, 1986). Because of local variations in the relative rates of uplift and submergence (Flemming, 1978), it is difficult to precisely determine the rate of sea-level rise and delimit the exact position of the Cypriot shoreline at any given time in the Holocene. In Flemming and Webb's (1986) analysis of tectonic and eustatic changes for deriving best-fit eustatic curves for the Mediterranean, the sea-level for Cyprus at ca. 5,000 BP was about –6 m. Gifford (1978) had estimated about –8 m for southeast Cyprus, thus these two figures accord relatively well (Gomez and Pease, 1992:2).

Using a variety of data, Gomez and Pease (1992) also constructed paleogeographic maps for the Cypriot coastline. They suggest that there were pronounced differences in the position and configuration of the paleoshoreline for the two periods studied. At 9,000 BP the shoreline along the southern coast of Cyprus is estimated to have been ca. 1.5 to 2.5 km further seaward than it cur-rently is, and by ca. 5,000 BP, the present configu-ration of the shoreline had been reached (Gomez and Pease, 1992:4). While these time periods skirt the occupation of Aetokremnos, Gomez and Pease (1992:4) do address the site specifically, and the bottom line is that they feel that the shoreline is likely to have been some 1.5 km further seaward from its present position during the site’s occupa-tion. This is in general concordance with Ammer-man and Noller’s (2005:538-539) reconstruction, which identifies the sea level at 12,000 BP as ca. 70 m below the present sea level, and is repro-duced in Fig. 3. Mandel’s (1999) detailed geoar-chaeological study of Aetokremnos also confirms this, and he also notes that the general topographic setting (i.e., the site’s location on a steep cliff) has not substantially changed since its occupation.

Related to sea-levels is the question of whether or not the Akrotiri Peninsula was an island during the time of Aetokremnos’ occupation. It is likely that at times in the past, at least the southern portion of the peninsula was separated from the mainland. This separation, though, undoubtedly was minimal. If the sea-level already had completed its major rise by the time of Aetokremnos' occupation, the possibility of an island may be unlikely. Stanley--Price (1979:8--9), however, believes that the Akrotiri Peninsula may have been "...no more than a shallow gulf between the mainland and the offshore island of Cape Gata" until relatively recently (i.e., the late Roman period). Thus the matter of whether or not the southern edge of the Akrotiri Peninsula was an island when Aetokremnos was occupied remains unresolved.

Leaving the issue of sea-levels, it is often surmised that in antiquity the interior of Cyprus was heavily forested (Meiggs, 1982), although actual paleobotanical data are rare. In a general reconstruction of the early Holocene vegetation of Cyprus, it is assumed that the island experienced the same re-forestation generally agreed to have occurred in the less arid zones of the Near East by ca. 10,000 BP. Meikle (1977:4-8) divides the late Holocene vegetation of Cyprus into eight phytogeographic regions, with a primary oak-pine Mediterranean woodland (Zohary, 1973) characterizing most of the island. More specific data are not available for the Akrotiri Peninsula.

EXCAVATION RESULTS: A SUMMARY

At Aetokremnos, we conducted four seasons of highly focused interdisciplinary excavations (Simmons, 1999). These demonstrated that the collapsed rockshelter had, in fact, substantial in situ deposits, nearly a meter in depth. Of particular interest were the two levels that contained substantial cultural and faunal materials, Strata 2 and 4. We recovered a considerable and well-preserved faunal assemblage consisted of nearly 300,000 bones, most of which were the remains of pygmy hippos (98.3%). These represented at least 505 individuals. Other fauna included a minimum of 3 dwarf elephants, over 70 birds, primarily great bustards, and over 70,000 shells

Akrotiri-Aetokremnos (Cyprus) 20 years later: an assessment of its significance 143

representing over 20,000 individuals. In addition, smaller amounts of other fauna were recovered, including, intriguingly 18 pig bones (Vigne et al., 2009). There also was an artifact assemblage exceeding 1,000 pieces of chipped stone. Of importance was that this assemblage did not resemble a typical Cypriot Neolithic assemblage. Rather, it would be perfectly at home in a mainland Late Epipaleolithic context. A few non-chipped stone artifacts also occurred, including shell and picrolite beads. We also documented 11 cultural features, of which 3 are in Stratum 4. Over 30

radiocarbon ages indicated an occupation of the site at around 12,000 calibrated BP (see below).

Table 1 summarizes the distribution of materials by stratum. The majority (61.5%) of the chipped stone occurred in Stratum 2, while the majority of the hippo remains (88.2%) were in Stratum 4. This, of course, is the crux of the controversial aspect of Aetokremnos. We argue that Strata 2 and 4 are closely related, both chronologically and culturally, while detractors argue that the bones are not the result of cultural activity, and that their limited presence in

Fig. 3. Map of the Akrotiri Peninsula, showing the estimated shoreline the present time, 6,000 BP and 12,000 BP. Aetokremnos is located at A and L is the present-day harbor at Limassol. Topographic contour lines are shown at 20 m intervals for the reconstructed12,000 BP landscape without its Holocene deposits and landforms. This figure is from Ammerman and Noller (2005:fig. 1, 539)

A. H. Simmons144

Stratum 2 (1.8%, but nearly 4,000 bones), as well as the presence of 11.8% of the chipped stone in Stratum 4, is due to stratigraphic disturbance and mixing (see additional discussion below).

In addition to the primary study, we returned to the site in 2009 to complete excavation of the one square meter that remained. We conducted a surface collection and excavated the remaining portion of the site, recovering a very large amount of intact hippo bone, as well as other (mainly bird) bone, shell, a few chipped stone artifacts, and a picrolite pendant blank. The site has now been completely excavated, except for a few remaining pockets in the back of the shelter. The results of this test paralleled the results of the primary excavations.

In 2010, we also conducted a short season at some of the adjacent sand dune sites that had been tested during the major fieldwork period. These sites were believed to be related to the occupation of Aetokremnos, but this linkage was made primarily by artifact similarities (Neely and Simmons, 1999). This season re-tested three sites previously examined, to see if erosion and/or deflation have revealed additional artifacts. In addition, we hoped to obtain more datable materials. The results indicated that these small sites likely are related to Aetokremnos, based on artifact similarities. They contribute

to understanding the settlement system of the earliest Cypriots on the Akrotiri Peninsula. All of these sites have been badly damaged due to natural and cultural forces and the likelihood of their producing much additional information including absolute ages is limited.

ADDRESSING THE CONTROVERSY

What are some of the enduring and remaining unresolved issues at Aetokremnos, and why does it remain so controversial? Even before the publication of the final volume in 1999, there had been some critical articles, and after the publication these continued (e.g., Ammerman and Noller, 2005; Bunimovich and Barkai, 1996; Binford, 2000; Grayson, 2002). We welcomed such discussion in the spirit of healthy archaeological debate. But, given the abundance of radiocarbon determinations and the in situ nature of the site, why did it generate so much controversy? The major criticism, of course, is the presence of cultural remains with extinct Pleistocene fauna. What this really boils down to is our claim that Strata 2 and 4 are close in time and both represent cultural activities, while the critics argue to the contrary. That is, while no one now doubts the cultural origin of Stratum 2,

Stratum Hippo2 Bird3 Shell4 Chipped stone

Surface 4,387 (2.0) 24 (0.1) 216 (1.0) 42 (4.1)

Mixed1 17,145 (7.9) 478 (14.9) 3,870 (18.1) 181 (17.7)

St. 1 123 (0.1) 42 (1.3) 627 (2.9) 47 (4.6)

St. 2 3,966 (1.8) 2,074 (64.7) 14,499 (67.8) 628 (61.5)

St. 3 503 (0.2) 40 (1.2) 104 (0.5) 3 (>0.1)

St. 4 192,335 (88.2) 547 (17.1) 2,074 (9.7) 129 (11.8)

1 “mixed” is primarily from interface of Strata 2 and 4, where there was no Stratum 3; 2 Refers to NISP3 Refers to NISP4 Refers to MNI only

Table 1. Stratigraphic association of primary data from Aetokremnos. Percents in parentheses

Akrotiri-Aetokremnos (Cyprus) 20 years later: an assessment of its significance 145

critics contend that Stratum 4 is the result of a natural accumulation of hippo bone, has nothing to do with cultural activity, and by implication is considerably older than Stratum 2. While I fully realize when one makes an assertation that goes against accepted archaeological belief, such as the association of cultural materials with extinct pygmy hippos, it is incumbent on us to prove this. After all, archaeology is by and large a conservative science, and with good reason. However, I also feel that, by using multiple lines of evidence, we have presented an argument that best takes account of all of the data and strongly points to a human and hippo connection at Aetokremnos. Certainly disagreement in archaeology is a positive thing, and the fact that after 20 years, this dialogue continues attests to the site’s significance. I also would like to note here that the majority of the site’s critics, with the exception of Albert Ammerman and Jay Noller, have not actually been to the site and none were at the site when it was under excavation.

In any event, it is not my intention here to discuss each and every criticism of Aetokremnos, as this has been done, as summarized in Simmons (1996, 2004) and Simmons and Mandel (2007). It is, however, worthwhile to discuss some of the pertinent issues, as they relate to many topics of current archaeological relevance in terms of how the discipline disseminates and interprets data. Accordingly, there are five specific topics to examine: stratigraphy, chronology, artifacts, cut-marks and taphonomy.

Stratigraphy

Along with a radiocarbon chronology, stratigraphy is clearly critical in interpreting Aetokremnos. We conducted extensive geoarchaeological and stratigraphic investigations at Aetokremnos that very clearly addressed site formation processes of the rockshelter, and how its stratigraphy is abundantly clear (Mandel, 1999; Mandel and Simmons, 1997, Simmons and Mandel, 2007:480) (Fig. 4). And yet, many persist in arguing that the site has mixed stratigraphy, which accounts for both the presence of artifacts in Stratum 4 and the presence of hippos in Stratum 2. This is not the case. The stratigraphy is crystal clear, and there

is no evidence of mixing. Specifically, Stratum 3, an archaeologically sterile zone, separates Strata 2 and 41. Also, biogenic features indicative of mixing, such as krotovina, do not occur in Strata 2, 3, or 4.

Perhaps one of the most egregious affronts to the site’s stratigraphy was presented by Bunimovich and Barkai (1996), who actually re-drew a published stratigraphic section and made it into a pit that did not exist and that cut from Stratum 2 into the Stratum 4 bone bed. This, they argued was evidence of mixing of deposits. While we clearly disputed their re-stratification of the site (Simmons, 1996), I mention this example because it continues to be repeated, most recently in the thorough report on the early Neolithic site of Shillourokambos. In a summary discussion, the authors (Guilaine et al., 2011:1220) seem to prefer Bunimovich and Barkai’s stratigraphic argument despite its clear inaccuracies. This is a surprising re-writing of the original stratigraphy and simply is not true.

Given the significance of the stratigraphic argument, it is worth addressing the site’s stratigraphy here. Stratum 1 is the uppermost stratigraphic unit and includes (1) colluvium that mantles intact and collapsed portions of the rockshelter’s roof and (2) colluvium, slopewash, roof fall and attrition sediment above Stratum 2. Stratum 1 does not contain any in situ cultural materials and is culturally sterile in terms of any stratigraphic integrity. Hippo remains were found in Stratum 1, but only where bones from Stratum 2 had obviously been displaced upward by the impact of roof fall. Also, the erosion of bone-rich strata within and along the fringes of the collapsed rockshelter has contributed limited faunal remains to Stratum 1. Stratum 1 is of variable thickness, up to 1.2 m in some places, and is subdivided into Strata 1A-E.

Stratum 2 is the uppermost cultural zone and contains the majority of the artifacts, features, and bird remains, although nearly 4,000 hippo bones

1 This is of considerable importance since in most of the excavated area, Stratum 3 clearly separates Stratum 2 from Stratum 4. I say most, because a few items were in Stratum 3, but these are in minor amounts and their presence can be accounted for by minor excavation admixture. Thus, for all intents and purposes, Stratum 3 is archaeologically sterile.

A. H. Simmons146

Stratum 4

Fig. 4. Photo of the major stratigraphic sequence at Aetokremnos (courtesy R. Mandel)

Stratum 2

Stratum 1

Stratum 3

Akrotiri-Aetokremnos (Cyprus) 20 years later: an assessment of its significance 147

also occur here. It largely consists of attrition and aeolian sediment, though large and small fragments of rock fall are scattered through it. The thickness of Stratum 2 is extremely variable, ranging between about 10 and 50 cm. This unit mantles a culturally sterile zone (Stratum 3) within most of the shelter, but directly overlies Stratum 4 in places at the front of the shelter. The lower boundary of Stratum 2 is usually abrupt. Stratum 2 is subdivided into Stratum 2A and 2B.

Stratum 3 is a sterile zone that separates Stratum 2 from Stratum 2. It consists of loamy sand and sandy loam that represent accumulations of sediment by attrition and aeolian processes. Also, large and small fragments of rock fall are scattered through the fine-grained matrix. This unit is 15–30 cm thick across most of the site, but it is much thinner or absent in some areas, especially near the front and back of the shelter. At a few places, cultural features in Stratum 2 truncate Stratum 3 and intersect Stratum 4.

Stratum 4 consists of an extremely dense accumulation of bones, primarily hippo, resting directly on the shelter’s bedrock floor. The bones are in a loose, sandy loam matrix that has been darkened by fine, powdery charcoal. Stratum 4 is 10–50 cm thick and is distributed throughout most of the interior of the collapsed rockshelter. The bulk of the sediment composing this unit accumulated through attrition and aeolian deposition. However, bouldersize and smaller clasts representing roof fall were common.

Stratum 4 is subdivided into four sedimentary units: Stratum 4A, 4B, 4A/B, and 4C.

Mandel’s (1999) detailed analysis clearly shows the stratigraphic integrity of the site, and demonstrates absolutely no evidence for mixing by humans responsible for Stratum 2 cutting into Stratum 4, which critics contend could have accounted for the association of artifacts with the faunal materials. In addition, there is no geomorphic evidence for a sinkhole, water movement, or other natural displacements that could have resulted in the deposition of the bones. There also is a high amount of phosphorous in both Strata 2 and 4, indicating much organic activity. Finally, the “clean” nature of the shelter’s floor, demonstrating no sediment accumulation, suggests that it was a prepared surface.

Chronology

Along with stratigraphy, a strong radiocarbon chronology is crucial to understanding Aetokrem-nos. This chronology also has been disputed, somewhat surprising given the general lack of numerical ages for most claimed pre-Neolithic sites throughout the Mediterranean islands. We have a total of 36 radiocarbon determinations from Aetokremnos, including 5 (Table 2) that have been obtained in recent years, and I stand by our claim that this makes Aetokremnos one of the most securely numerically dated sites on any

Lab Number Material Date (uncal. BP) Date range (cal. B.P), 2 s.d.

AA 79920 Sus, apatite, unburned 8,588 ± 50 9,505-9,598

AA 79921 Sus, apatite, charred 9,055 ± 52 10,194-10,245

AA 79922 Sus, apatite, partly calcined 9,842 ± 54 11,201-11,285

AA 79923 Sus, degraded collagen 10,045 ± 69 11,396-11,764

OxA 15989 Charcoal 10,225 ± 50 12,055-12,088

Table 2. Recent additional radiocarbon determinations from Aetokremnos (AA dates from Vigne et al., 2009)

A. H. Simmons148

of the Mediterranean islands. Significantly, these determinations indicate that the time difference between Strata 2 and 4 is so minimal that it cannot be measured in radiocarbon years. While these data have been presented in various ways, we reaffirm our original interpretation of a relatively short occupation of some 300 years centered around 11,775 cal. BP, with a range of 11,652-11,955 ca. BP at one standard deviation, or 11,504-12,096 cal. BP at two standard deviations (Wigand and Simmons, 1999; Simmons, 2004:5). This is in general accord with Manning’s (2013:501-503) masterful compilation of all early Cypriot radiocarbon determinations, in which he places Aetokremnos within an approximate 12,950-10,950 cal. BP range while also preferring a somewhat longer occupation than we presented.

Of the 36 determinations, 9 are on hippo bone, 4 are on pig bone, 10 are on charcoal, 3 are on sediment, and 10 are on shell. The original determinations and specific associated issues have been thoroughly addressed (Simmons and Wigand 1994; Wigand and Simmons 1999), and it is somewhat surprising that these detailed discussions have apparently not been read in detail by some of the site’s critics. A primary source of dispute are the 9 original radiocarbon ages on hippo bone. Clearly, dating bone presents several challenges. Essentially, the critics point to the wide range of bone ages, some of which were quite recent. In our detailed discussion on the site’s numerical chronology, we discard the 3 hippo ages determined on exposed surface bone as being contaminated. This still left 6 bone ages (1 of which we also rejected as an outlier; Wigand and Simmons, 1999:204), and these generally were somewhat younger than the charcoal dates. I should note that this is not an uncommon situation with bone ages.

In any event, the critics’ argument is that the hippo bone dates are unreliable and that Stratum 4 is considerably older than Stratum 2. To address these charges, with the generous assistance of Sturt Manning, we recently attempted to date additional bone samples (hippo-11, elephant-2, and bird-9) and charcoal (1) using the more precise refinements in the radiocarbon process that are currently available. Unfortunately, the bone samples did not yield any radiocarbon ages, although the charcoal sample (from Stratum 2)

was precisely where it should be 12,135 cal. BP (OxA-15989). Other recent samples on pig (Sus) yielded 4 ages, two of which were rejected, and with the remaining two exhibiting a range of 11,400-11,700 cal. BP, at two standard deviations (Vigne et al., 2009).

I also should note that this is an on-going process, and that additional bone samples are now being subjected to high precise radiocarbon dating, but we have no results yet. Unless one can show that the hippo bones are considerably older than the cultural materials, which has not been done, there seems little reason to question the synchronicity of both.

Much has been made of the fact that the radiocarbon samples had been processed prior to recent methodological refinements, as summarized by Manning in this issue. This certainly is true, as it was with any site excavated in the 1980s and 1990s. However, it is important to realize that the more precise ages that refinements in AMS dating can provide does not mean that earlier ages are inaccurate. If this were the case, all of the radiocarbon dated sites excavated prior to, say, 2000, would have their chronologies in question.

The bottom line on the bone ages is simple. Discard all of them. By doing so, we still have a strong geochemically defensible chronology for Aetokremnos, with 23 ages, which, I think, most would agree is a strong numerical chronology for any site. Seventeen of these ages are from Stratum 2, two are from a mixed Strata 2/4 context, and four are from Stratum 4. When examining these data, it is clear that both Strata 2 and 4 and not separated by much time. This should be the end of the discussion.

Artifacts

When excavated, the artifacts from Aetokremnos were unique to Cyprus, and generally fit within an assemblage that on the mainland could easily be Late Epipaleolithic or Natufian (Simmons, 1999:123-146). Since the excavation, more recent excavations have recovered assemblages similar to those from Aetokremnos that may represent other Late Epipaleolithic occupations (Ammerman et al., 2006:11-17; Efstratiou et al., 2012). Initially, some skeptics felt that the chipped

Akrotiri-Aetokremnos (Cyprus) 20 years later: an assessment of its significance 149

stone from Aetokremnos was not cultural, or were perhaps similar to modern “Dhukani” threshing flints. We have demonstrated that this is not the case. It is important to note that until recently, Cyprus has not had a strong history of much attention being paid to chipped stone; fortunately this is no longer the case (e.g., McCartney, 2005 and others). What is clear is that the chipped stone from Aetokremnos is unlike any assemblages from the later Cypriot Neolithic. It is largely microlithic and blade/bladelet oriented, and would fit comfortably within any number of Late Epipaleolithic assemblages from the mainland.

There also were a few non-chipped stone artifacts, and recently, Guilaine, Briois, and Vigne (2011:1221) noted that some of these resembled Neolithic artifacts, although they were not disputing the Late Epipaleolithic nature of the overall assemblage. And, indeed, some of the ground items and ornaments, especially the picrolite, would be at home in Neolithic assemblages. But, these are not “type fossil” sorts of artifacts, and can easily occur in both Neolithic and Late Epipaleolithic contexts.

Cut marks

When Lewis Binford (2000) reviewed our 1999 book it was apparent that he really did not read the entire volume. Rather, he primarily concentrated on the apparent absence of cutmarks on the hippo bones, thereby dismissing the cultural relationship (see Olsen, 1999). Cutmarks, or lack thereof, is an immensely complex topic, and we addressed Olsen’s contribution point by point (see footnotes to Olsen, 1999). We reported the data, as they existed. Olsen looked at a large sample, and I am confident of her analysis, if not her conclusions. Suffice it to say that a huge literature exists on cutmarks, and even in clearly cultural faunal assemblages, cutmarks are rare in most cases.

The presence or absence of cutmarks is depen-dent on several variables, including the type of animal, how it was butchered and processed, and how it was consumed. We argued that an animal with as much fat as a hippo might not necessarily have been cut to the bone in preparation. Further-more, if the animal was roasted whole, luau style, there might have been no need for cutmarks.

Related to the cutmark issue were criticisms that the chipped stone tools, especially the diag-nostic thumbnail scrapers, were too small to have been used to butcher an animal such as a pygmy hippo. This clearly is a spurious argument, as ethnographic analogies have shown that even full sized modern elephants can be processed with nothing more than flakes (Frison, 1979:260, 1989:768-779; Haynes, 1988:185).

Taphonomy

One of the deficiencies of the 1999 book was the lack of a detailed study on the taphonomy of the faunal remains. There are many reasons for this, but we certainly are aware than a detailed taphonomic study would have contributed to the volume. Indeed, if such a study were available, it would be invaluable to compare Aetokremnos to, say, the recently investigated Ayia Napa pygmy hippo assemblage (Theodorou et al., 2004), which contains a large number of animals in a natural context similar to Aetokremnos (although details have not been fully published).

What is somewhat curious about this criticism, however, is the often cited reference to Donald Grayson’s (2002) review of the book. This is always cited as a negative review in relation to our conclusions. I have always found this somewhat curious, given that Grayson’s review was very fair, and that while he expressed some doubt about the cultural association with the hippos, he certainly did not rule it out. Rather, he called for a more detailed taphonomic study. When I asked Grayson about his current thoughts on the assemblage, and the negative tone of his review, he replied as follows:

“Cites me as an opponent? …as you know, that is absolutely not what I meant. I am neither an extreme doubter nor an extreme accepter. I think Akrotiri Aetokremnos is an extremely important site in need of a taphonomic assessment, …You've got great dates and a pretty straightforward stratigraphic setting, which has been very well-described….There's no question as to the age of Akrotiri Aetokremnos; there's just a question as to the meaning of the pygmy hippos” (Grayson, 2012 personal communication). In relation to this issue, a student is presently doing a Ph.D.

A. H. Simmons150

dissertation on the site’s pygmy hippo remains, including the taphonomy of that assemblage.

Pat Shipman’s (1979) famous taphonomic quote “what are all these bones doing here?” clearly is relevant to Aetokremnos. And, while detailed taphonomic analysis is not yet complete, we did address several non-cultural scenarios to account of the dense accumulation (e.g., Simmons, 2004:8). This included the possibility of a sinkhole, an accretional paleontological deposit of animals accidentally falling off the cliffs above the site, or of sick animals going into the shelter to die. All three arguments are unlikely.

There is absolutely no geological evidence of a sinkhole or any geomorphic activity indicating that the bones were washed into the confines of the Aetokremnos shelter. For an accretional ex-planation involving animals falling off the cliffs, the lack of spreading vertically or horizontally on the cliffs argues against this. Furthermore, if they fell over the cliff, how did they get inside of the shelter? And, even if this occurred, why did they only accumulate in the Aetokremnos shelter? As to the argument for a natural accumulation by sick animals, again, why would Aetokremnos be the only shelter used by ill hippos who had gone somewhere to die? It scertainly is too small to hold over 500 hippos at once, and if it were a nat-ural accumulation through time, why are virtually none of the over 200,000 bones articulated? Also arguing against the old, ill, and infirmed scenario is the fact that 27% of the analyzed hippos are under one year old (Reese and Roler, 1999:156-158). Finally, there are other fauna at the site, in-cluding many birds and shell, and these increase over time, suggesting that as the hippos were be-coming scarcer, presumably due to overhunting, alternate economic resources were being used.

A final issue that is taphonomic-related is burning. About 29% of the bone at Aetokremnos is burned, much of it severely. It is doubtful that this degree and amount of burning could have a non-cultural origin. While some might argue that underlying bone could have been burned by overlying hearths, this is unlikely since even in such a scenario, the bone would not have been severely charred. In an experimental study, Stiner and colleagues point out that "...although bones were buried as deep as 15 cm below the coal bed, only those specimens in the first 5 cm were

affected much by heat from the fire. Moreover, these shallowly buried bones were burned only to the point of carbonization..." (Stiner et al., 1995:230). At Aetokremnos, Stratum 4 is up to 50 cm. thick, and burned bone occurs throughout the stratum, not only on the top of it. Furthermore, Stratum 2 frequently is separated from Stratum 4 by several cm of Stratum 3, which is not burned. The separation between the bottom of fire hearths in Stratum 2 and bone in Stratum 4 almost always exceeds 15 cm, and yet much of this bone is thoroughly burned. It is therefore exceedingly unlikely that the burning is the result of overlaying hearths. Finally, much of the burned bone is not even located beneath the hearths.

DISCUSSION

After over two decades, I stand by our original interpretations of Aetokremnos, with perhaps some “fine-tuning.” I am delighted that Aetokremnos continues to generate so much discussion, and welcome constructive criticism. It is healthy to have contrary opinions to one’s conclusions; however, they should not be fact free or incorrect citations of the published record. Above, I have cited some examples of how some criticisms have been distorted towards a particular point of view and have ignored published data on the site. I am thus concerned with the lack of attention to detail, attempts to re-write what has been published, and general distortion of data.

And, this is a continuing trend, sometimes perhaps made innocently, as when the usually meticulous Bernard Knapp (2013:59) stated in a masterful summary that “…several archaeologists remain skeptical about the association between humans and the endemic fauna at Aetokremnos.” He cites an article by Sondaar and van der Geer as evidence of this when, in fact, they strongly supported our conclusions. To wit: “…the taphonomy of Cypriotic Akrotiri is much more easily explained by an overkill of the hippos…the human hunters might well have been responsible for the extinction of the slow moving dwarf hippo” (Sondaar and van der Geer, 2000:71).

In detailed summaries, Knapp (2010:85-94, 2013:52-59) provides considerable discussion on Aetokremnos, and he is not alone in noting

Akrotiri-Aetokremnos (Cyprus) 20 years later: an assessment of its significance 151

that the “perfect storm” of circumstances would certainly implicate humans in having some role in the extinction of Cyprus’ endemic Pleistocene fauna. This should come as no surprise, given that we know that in just about every case documented of humans invading unoccupied islands, faunal extinction is a near certainty (Simmons, 2013). This is especially well documented in proto-historic and historic times. Many endemic species, especially “large” ones like the pygmy hippos (or “mini-mega-fauna) were likely naïve, having no natural predators. Humans would have taken advantage of this. Such animals would have been easy to hunt and highly susceptible to the presence of people newly arrived in their island niche. Knapp observes (2010:93) that “Although controversy over both the proximate and ultimate causes of the demise of the Mediterranean’s mini-megafauna will continue, the worldwide record of faunal extinctions at least makes it plausible that humans were involved. And in the case of Aetokremnos, Cherry (1990:195) maintained that ‘… man has here been discovered, as it were, holding a smoking gun.”

Now, of course, determining what the human role was is not a simple task. As Knapp, Cherry, and others note, in convicting humans of overkill, it is still necessary to consider whether extinction was: 1. the direct result of overkill by humans; 2. the introduction with humans of new species competing with endemic fauna for ecological niches, nourishment, or 3. the indirect conse-quence of wider modification of the landscape by both climate changes and human (agricultural, pastoral) interference.

I fully agree with this notion. In the case of Aetokremnos, we can eliminate the possibility of wide-scale landscape modification by agriculturalists or pastoralists, since the site pre-dates these events. But, hunters and gatherers also affect landscapes. In addition, the recent discussion by Vigne et al. (2009) regarding wild pigs possibly being introduced by people slightly earlier than those at Aetokremnos lends some credence to the niche competition scenario, although I caution against making too strong a case here based on the presence of 18 pig bones from Aetokremnos. In any case, I suspect that in the case of Aetokremnos, we are looking at aspects of all three of these cultural scenarios,

coupled with the wider climatic consequences of the Younger Dryas.

Following Knapp’s (2010:93, 2013:58-59) discussion, animals like pygmy hippos, which are about the size of a large pig, can take a heavy toll on their habitats. They have limited population densities and are highly susceptible to any kind of environmental change, especially in an island context. The colder and dryer weather of the Younger Dryas may have reduced or eliminated some of the dietary sources in the Akrotiri peninsula upon which the hippos depended on. Such developments would have made these pygmy hippos more vulnerable to extinction by the introduction of a new predator: humans. And even without climatic stress, a healthy population of pygmy hippos likely could have been decimated by small groups of efficient hunters.

Thus, I concur with Knapp’s (2010:94) statement that “People arrived, and, as the radiocarbon dates indicate, within 1,000 or so years two endemic mini-megafauna became extinct. In other words, even taking into account such factors as climatic and environmental change, the pygmy hippo evidence from elsewhere in Cyprus, or the possibility of competition with introduced species, the people who utilised the site of Aetokremnos may very well have played a role in the overkill of the mini-megafauna. The presence of people, some of whom may have been highly specialized hunters, on islands with animals that previously had lacked predators, almost certainly had disastrous results.”

CONCLUSIONS

So, in retrospect, what is the significance of Aetokremnos? There is no question that Aetokremnos is an extremely important site. It is one of the first of many claimed pre-Neolithic sites on a Mediterranean island, especially an oceanic one, that is supported by empirical evidence and a solid cadre of defensible radiocarbon determinations. There is no doubt of its antiquity. The site remains controversial, however, due to our insistence on the association of cultural materials with extinct Pleistocene fauna. That this controversy has been going on for over 20 years is a testament alone to the site’s significance.

A. H. Simmons152

Especially in light of the controversy, would I have done anything different in our excavations? With the benefit of hindsight, this is always an interesting question. Certainly analytical techniques have improved over the years that might have assisted interpretation in some ways. But, in terms of the actual archaeology, there is really very little that I would have done differently, given the context of the site and funding2 considerations. John Cherry, Nicholas Stanley-Price, and others were right many years ago, when they said that to demonstrate an early human presence on the Mediterranean islands (and anywhere, in fact) requires: good numerical ages, context, and artifacts (cf. Cherry, 1992:36). This remains true today, and Aetokremnos fulfills all three criteria. This cannot be said for most other pre-Neolithic sites in both Cyprus and other Mediterranean islands. Given the ephemeral nature of most such sites, they will always be difficult to precisely document. Archaeology has, however, made tremendous strides towards unraveling such sites in recent years, as indicated in this issue, and I am confident that with additional refinements, more and more such sites will be better documented. At the same time, however, we cannot uncritically accept sites as pre-Neolithic without empirical justification.

So, what would I have done differently? Specifically, we might have done more point proveniencing of bones and artifacts and attempted to get more funding for a detailed taphonomic analysis of the bones. Publication wise, I have few regrets. One thing that I would have done in the final volume, however, is put Aetokremnos into a broader context. Specifically, I would have addressed more fully its context in the Younger Dryas, discussed more thoroughly the site’s functional implications, put the site into a broader Mediterranean perspective, examined the sea-faring implications for these pre-Neolithic peoples, addressed in more detail

2 Funding, which of course affects everything on a project, always was a challenge at Aetokremnos. Initially, I could not get support since funding agencies were not convinced that Aetokremnos was even a site. Ironically, when we demonstrated this, I still had difficulty because some agencies said, essentially, “Well, you’ve now shown it to be a site so we don’t need to fund you.” I do not say this to be defensive, but simply to put things in proper context.

how Aetokremnos differs from other, non-cultural pygmy hippo sites, and stressed even more that one site alone, no matter how rich, cannot definitively prove or disprove a human role in the extinction process. These are all points made by others who have invested considerable amounts of time into trying to place Aetokremnos within a broader context.

Nonetheless, I stand by our original interpretations of this enigmatic site. Will we ever know for sure if this is true? That is unlikely. Some critics of the site have said that all we have is circumstantial evidence to support our conclusions. Well, yes, that is correct. But, archaeology is circumstantial by its very nature. I have always argued that if Aetokremnos were a mainland site and that if the fauna were, say, sheep rather than hippos, no one would question the cultural context. But we dealt with the data that we had. Contemporary archaeology is dependent upon using multiple lines of evidence, and by doing so, the most parsimonious explanation for Aetokremnos is a cultural one. By examining multiple lines of evidence from a truly interdisciplinary perspective, we believe that the Aetokremnos rockshelter was used for protection and storage, and functioned as a processing site and bone cache; much of the bone may have been used for fuel. We have modeled that a small group of humans could have, within a relatively short period, eradicated remnant hippo populations who may have already been suffering ecological stress due to climatic change.

It is curious that since our excavations, there have been claims made for contemporary or older sites based on far less peer reviewed evidence, and yet the archaeological validity of these seems not be questioned to the degree that Aetokremnos was. Perhaps this is simply because the scenario of humans hunting an animal as odd as a pygmy hippo is out of the comfort range of most of our ideas about human predation. Regardless, I would go farther than John Cherry did when he noted that there is a smoking gun to implicate humans and hippos at Aetokremnos. Rather, we have not only the smoking gun but also the bullet.

Akrotiri-Aetokremnos (Cyprus) 20 years later: an assessment of its significance 153

AcknowledgmentsI would like to thanks the Department of Antiquity of the Republic of Cyprus for its generous support of the excavations at Aetokremnos through several directors, starting with Vassos Karageorghis, who was appropri-ately skeptical of the site’s importance at first. The staff at the Kourion Museum was always most helpful, as was the Western Sovereign Base Area Archaeological Society. Major funding for the project came from grants from the National Geographic Society, the Na- tional Science Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Leakey Foundation, the Institute for Aegean Prehistory, the Lindley Foundation, the Brennan Foundation, and the Desert Research Institute at the Nevada System of Higher Education. I would especially like to thank Drs. Rolfe Mandel and Donald Grayson for their comments on aspects of this paper, and Dr. Albert Ammerman and all of the participants at the Wenner-Gren Symposium.

REFERENCES

ADOVASIO J., FRY G., GUNN J., MASLOWSKI R. 1975. Prehistoric and historic settlement patterns in western Cyprus (with a discussion of Cypriot Neolithic stone tool technology). World Archaeology 6, 339-–364.

AMMERMAN A.J., NOLLER J.S. 2005. New light on Aetokremnos. World Archaeology 37, 533–543.

AMMERMAN A., FLOURENTZOS P., MCCART-NEY C., NOLLER J., SORABJI D. 2006. Two new early sites on Cyprus. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus 2006, 1-22.

VAN ANDEL T. 1989. Late Quaternary sea-level changes and archaeology. Antiquity 63, 733–745.

BINFORD L.R. 2000. Review of Faunal Extinctions in an Island Society: Pygmy Hippopotamus Hunters of the Akrotiri Peninsula, Cyprus by A. Simmons. American Antiquity 65, 771.

BROODBANK C. 2006. The origins and early development of Mediterranean maritime activity. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 19, 199–230.

BUNIMOVICH S., BARKAI R.1996. Ancient bones and modern myths: ninth millennium BC hippopotamus hunters at Akrotiri Aetokremnos, Cyprus? Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, 9, 85–96.

CHERRY J. 1990. The first colonization of the

Mediterranean islands: a review of recent re-search. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 3, 145–221.

CHERRY J. 1992. Palaeolithic Sardinians? Some questions of evidence and method. In: R. Tykot, T. Andrews (eds.) Sardinia in the Mediterranean: a footprint in the sea. Studies in Sardinian Archaeology. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, 28–39.

CHERRY J. 2004. Mediterranean island prehistory: what’s different and what’s new? In: S. Fitzpatrick (ed.) Voyages of Discovery, The Archaeology of Islands. Praeger, Westport, CT, 233–248.

DIAMOND J. 1989. Quaternary megafaunal extinctions: variations on a theme by Paganini. Journal of Archaeological Science 16, 167–175.

EFSTRATIOU N., McCARTNEY C., KARKANAS P., KYRIAKOU D. 2012. An upland early site in the Troodos Mountains. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 2010, 1–26.

FERENTINOS G., GKIIONI M., GERAGA M., PAPATHEODOROU G. 2012. Early seafaring activity in the southern Ionian Islands, Mediterranean Sea. Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 2167–2176.

FLEMMING N. 1978. Holocene eustatic changes and coastal tectonics in the northeast Mediterranean: implications for models of crustal consumption. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London 289A, 405–458.

FLEMMING N., WEBB C. 1986. Tectonic and eustatic coastal changes during the last 10,000 years derived from archaeological data. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, Supplement 62, 1–29.

FRISON G. 1979. Observations on the use of stone tools: dulling of working edges of some chipped stone tools in bison butchery. In: B. Hayden (ed.) Lithic use-wear analysis. Academic Press, New York, 259–268.

FRISON G. 1989. Experimental use of Clovis weaponry and tools on African elephants. American Antiquity 54, 766–784.

GIFFORD J. 1978. Paleogeography of archaeological sites of the Larnaca lowlands, southeastern Cyprus. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of Minnesota, Duluth.

GOMEZ B., PEASE P. 1992. Early Holocene Cypriot coastal palaeogeography. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus 1992, 1–8.

GRAYSON D. 2002. Review of Faunal extinctions in

A. H. Simmons154

an island society: pygmy hippopotamus hunters of the Akrotiri Peninsula, Cyprus by A. Simmons. Geoarchaeology 15, 379–381.

GUILAINE J., BRIOIS F., VIGNE J.D. 2011. Chypre et le Proche-Orient à la lumière des fouilles de Shillourokambos. In: J. Guilaine, F. Briois, J.D. Vigne (eds) Shillourokambos. Un établissement Néolithique Pre-Céramique à Chypre. Les fouilles du secteur 1. Errance, Ecole Française D’Athènes, Athens, 1219–1248.

HAYNES G. 1988. Spiral fractures, cutmarks, and other myths about early bone assemblages. In: J. Willig, C. Aikens, J. Fagan (eds.) Early human occupation in far western North America: the Clovis-Archaic interface. Nevada State Museum, Anthropological Papers Number 21, Carson City, 145–151.

HELD S. 1992. Pleistocene fauna and Holocene humans: a gazetteer of paleontological and early archaeological sites on Cyprus. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, Vol. XCV. Paul Åströms Förlag, Jonsered.

Le BRUN A., CLUZAN S., DAVIS S., HANSEN J., RENAULT-MISKOVSKY J. 1987. Le Néolithique Précéramique de Chypre. L'Anthropologie 91, 283–316.

KNAPP A.B. 2010. Cyprus’ earliest prehistory: seafarers, foragers and settlers. Journal of World Prehistory 23, 79–120.

KNAPP A.B. 2013. The Archaeology of Cyprus. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

KNAPP A.B., HELD S., MANNING S. 1994. The prehistory of Cyprus: problems and prospects. Journal of World Prehistory 377, 377–453.

MANDEL R.D. 1999. Stratigraphy and sedimentology. In: A.H. Simmons, Faunal extinctions in an island society: pygmy hippopotamus hunters of the Akrotiri Peninsula, Cyprus. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 49–69.

MANDEL R.D., SIMMONS A.H. 1997. Geoarchaeo- logy of the Akrotiri Aetokremnos rockshelter, southern Cyprus. Geoarchaeology 12, 567–605.

MANNING S. 2013. Appendix. A new radiocarbon chronology for prehistoric and prothistoric Cyprus, ca. 11,000-1050 cal BC. In: B. Knapp The archaeology of Cyprus: from earliest prehistory through the Bronze Age. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 485-533.

MARTIN P.S., KLEIN R. (eds.). 1984. Quaternary extinctions: a prehistoric revolution. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

McCARTNEY C. 2005. Preliminary report on the re-survey of three early Neolithic sites in Cyprus. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus 2005, 1–21.

MEIGGS R. 1982. Trees and timber in the ancient Mediterranean world. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

MEIKLE R. 1977. Flora of Cyprus. Volume 1. The Bentham-Moxon Trust, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

NEELY M., SIMMONS A.H. 1999. Additional archaeological investigations on the Akrotiri Peninsula. In: A.H. Simmons, Faunal extinctions in an island society: pygmy hippopotamus hunters of the Akrotiri Peninsula, Cyprus. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 239–258.

OLSEN S. 1999. Investigation of the Phanourios bones for evidence of cultural modification. In: A.H. Simmons, Faunal extinctions in an island society: pygmy hippopotamus hunters of the Akrotiri Peninsula, Cyprus. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 230–237.

POOLE A., ROBERTSON A. 1991. Quaternary uplift and sea level change at an active plate boundary. Journal of the Geological Society of London 148, 909–921.

REESE D. 1989. Tracking the extinct pygmy hippopotamus of Cyprus. Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 60, 22–29.

REESE D., ROLER K. 1999. The faunal assemblages. In: A.H. Simmons, Faunal extinctions in an island society: pygmy hippopotamus hunters of the Akrotiri Peninsula, Cyprus. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 153–192.

ROSEN A. 2007. Civilizing climate: social responses to climate change in the ancient Near East. Alta Mira Press, Lanham, MD.

SHACKLETON J., van ANDEL T., RUNNELS C. 1984. Coastal paleogeography of the central and western Mediterranean during the last 125,000 years and its archaeological implications. Journal of Field Archaeology 11, 307–314.

SHIPMAN P. 1979. What are all these bones doing here? Confessions of a taphonomist. Harvard Magazine Nov-Dec., 42–46.

SIMMONS A.H. 1988. Extinct pygmy hippopotamus and early man in Cyprus. Nature 333, 554-–557.

SIMMONS A.H. 1991. Humans, island colonization and Pleistocene extinctions in the Mediterranean: the view from Akrotiri Aetokremnos, Cyprus. Antiquity 65, 857-–869.

Akrotiri-Aetokremnos (Cyprus) 20 years later: an assessment of its significance 155

SIMMONS A.H. 1996. Whose myth? Archaeological data, interpretations, and implications for the human association with extinct Pleistocene fauna at Akrotiri Aetokremnos, Cyprus. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 9, 95–103.

SIMMONS A.H. 1999. Faunal Extinctions in an Island Society: Pygmy Hippopotamus Hunters of Cyprus. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. New York.

SIMMONS A.H. 2004. Bitter hippos of Cyprus: the island’s first occupants and last endemic animals – setting the stage for colonization. In: E. Peltenburg, A. Wasse (eds.) Neolithic Revolution: new perspectives on southwest Asia in light of recent discoveries on Cyprus. Levant Supplementary Series 1. Oxbox Books, Oxford, 1–14.

SIMMONS A.H. 2007. The Neolithic Revolution in the Near East: Transforming the Human Landscape. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

SIMMONS A.H. 2012. Mediterranean island voyages. Science 338, 895–897.

SIMMONS A.H. 2013. Island faunas. In: M. McDale (ed.) Grzimek’s animal life encyclopedia – extinction. Gale-Centage Learning, Farmington Hills, MI. 177–185.

SIMMONS A.H, MANDEL R. 2007. Not such a new light: A response to Ammerman and Noller. World Archaeology 39(4), 475–482.

SIMMONS A.H., WIGAND P. 1994. Assessing the radiocarbon determinations from Akrotiri Aetokremnos, Cyprus. In: O. Bar-Yosef, R. Kra (eds.) Late Quaternary Chronology and Paleoclimates of the Eastern Mediterranean. Radiocarbon and American School of Prehistoric Research, Tucson and Cambridge, 247–254.

SONDAAR P.Y., van der GEER A.E. 2000. Mesolithic environment and animal exploitation on Cyprus and Sardinia/Corsica. In: M. Mashkour, A. Choyke, H. Buitenhuis, F. Poplin (eds) Archaeozoology of the Near East IVA. ARC Publicatie 32, Groningen, 67–73.

STANLEY-PRICE N. 1979. Early prehistoric settle-ment in Cyprus: a review and gazetteer of sites, c. 6500-3000 B.C. British Archaeological Reports International Series 65, Oxford.

STEEL L. 2004. Cyprus before history. Duckworth, London.

STOCKTON E. 1968. Pre-Neolithic Remains at Kyrenia, Cyprus. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus 1968, 16-–19.

STRASSER T., RUNNELS C., MURRAY P.

THOMPSON N., PARKANAS P., MCCOY F., WEGMANN K. 2010. Stone Age seafaring in the Mediterranean: evidence from the Plakias region for Lower Palaeolithic and Mesolithic habitation of Crete. Hesperia 79, 145–190.

STINER M., KUHN S., WEINER S., BAR-YOSEF O. 1995. Differential burning, recrystallization, and fragmentation of archaeological bone. Journal of Archaeological Science 22, 223–237.

THEODOROU G., PANAYIDES I., STATHOPOU-LOU E., PAPASPYROPOLOS C., AGIADI K., TSOLAKIS E. 2004. Remarks on the endemic fossil Hippopotamus from Aghia Napa (Cyprus). In: A. Chatzipetros, S. Pavlides (eds.) 5th Inter-national Symposium on Eastern Mediterranean Geology Thessaloniki, Greece, 14-20 April 2004. Thessaloniki.

VIGNE J.D., ZAZZO A., SALIÈGE J.F., POPLIN F., GUILAINE J. 2009. Pre-Neolithic wild boar management and introduction to Cyprus more than 11,400 years ago. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 106, 16135–16138.

VITA-FINZI C. 1973. Paleolithic finds from Cyprus? Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 39, 453–454.

WIGAND P., SIMMONS A.H. 1999. The dating of Akrotri Aetokremnos. In: A.H. Simmons, Faunal extinctions in an island society: pygmy hippopotamus hunters of the Akrotiri Peninsula, Cyprus. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 193–215.

ZOHARY M. 1973. Geobotanical foundations of the Middle East. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart.